![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xiphias. . . is that even if we liberals get absolutely everything we're pushing for, we don't get anything particularly impressive.
What we're asking for is a federally-funded insurance program to help insure people who aren't getting insurance by the commercial market.
That's it.
That's what "the public option" is.
The whole SocializmGonnaDestroyAmericaDeathPanels thing is -- an extra health insurance plan that goes in addition to our current system. No government-run health care. No NHS. No health care rationing. Just a program to help insure the people who aren't insured.
One idea about this is that there's not going to be a "needs test" to get in. If you're rich, and you want to go with the public option, sure, go ahead.
And THAT'S what the insurance companies are so worked up about. They don't think that they have the ability to offer anything remotely as attractive as what the federal government can offer.
Government incompetence and waste? The insurance industry is convinced that the government incompetence and waste is going to be so much LESSER than their OWN incompetence and waste that nobody's gonna want to go with THEIR things.
And THAT'S the big deal. The insurance industry is convinced that they have made such a god damned mess of the whole thing that anything the federal government can scrape together, no matter how pathetic, is going to be SO much better than THEIR shit that nobody's gonna want to buy their shit any more.
That doesn't really inspire confidence in them, does it?
What we're asking for is a federally-funded insurance program to help insure people who aren't getting insurance by the commercial market.
That's it.
That's what "the public option" is.
The whole SocializmGonnaDestroyAmericaDeathPanels thing is -- an extra health insurance plan that goes in addition to our current system. No government-run health care. No NHS. No health care rationing. Just a program to help insure the people who aren't insured.
One idea about this is that there's not going to be a "needs test" to get in. If you're rich, and you want to go with the public option, sure, go ahead.
And THAT'S what the insurance companies are so worked up about. They don't think that they have the ability to offer anything remotely as attractive as what the federal government can offer.
Government incompetence and waste? The insurance industry is convinced that the government incompetence and waste is going to be so much LESSER than their OWN incompetence and waste that nobody's gonna want to go with THEIR things.
And THAT'S the big deal. The insurance industry is convinced that they have made such a god damned mess of the whole thing that anything the federal government can scrape together, no matter how pathetic, is going to be SO much better than THEIR shit that nobody's gonna want to buy their shit any more.
That doesn't really inspire confidence in them, does it?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 03:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 03:54 pm (UTC)More to the point, this is the most extreme thing that's even being discussed.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-02 01:07 am (UTC)Single payer never had anywhere near majority support in either the House or the Senate, so "caved" would not apply - it simply couldn't pass, and you can't accuse people who oppose it of having "caved" when they didn't vote for it.
The next biggest deal after real single payer, that most Democrats do want, is the public option. It's the compromise that had to be made because single payer can't get majority support.
It's not "just one small part", it's by far the biggest and most important thing in this reform.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-02 01:23 am (UTC)Admittedly, I haven't done any research of my own, and haven't been paying much attention to the news of late, so my ignorance is largely my own fault. But I've heard plenty from the opposition. If the Democrats were as good at getting their message out as their opposition is, I'd know what it is they're trying to do.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-02 01:28 am (UTC)Today is the first time I realized this.
The whole health care debate is being undertaken primarily by people who have no idea what we're debating, on ANY side of the issue. Today is the first day that I actually understood what "the public option" actually IS, and is the first time that I realized just how innocuous it is -- far MORE unambitious and far less-reaching than I would have preferred, actually.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-02 01:32 am (UTC)If the public option is done well (something that will take more work the future, it'll be an ongoing process), and if private for-profit insurance really can't fix itself (seems fairly likely), then the public option gradually turns into real single-payer. That's part of why it's such a big deal - it's a way to get a start on single payer without waiting to convince a majority of the Congress; instead, you can convince the country little by little, and if they turn out to want it, they'll get it.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-02 01:35 am (UTC)And neither of us knew what the actual plan under debate even IS until just now.
How did that happen?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-02 02:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-02 11:38 am (UTC)I don't have a working television, and I don't have a newspaper subscription, but I listen to NPR and WBUR. I pay attention to what politicians say in speeches, and try to pay attention to press releases and so forth.
And NONE of those things ever bothered to DEFINE what "the public option" was. I could tell you who was for it, who was against it, how many votes it had, who was still on the fence, even what some of the arguments for and against it were.
But I couldn't tell you what it was.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-02 02:03 pm (UTC)I have some sympathy though. Very few sources directly stated what 'the public option' was.
I happen to know because I'm something like the one-eyed man in the land of the blind; I'm good at accurately determining knowledge that is provided indirectly. Not everyone is.
So I think that:
a) News sources, and the democratic party, should do a better job of directly stating what the policies being debated are about;
and
b) You should stop blinding yourself to information that is provided indirectly. Considering it unconfirmed is one thing (it's even a good thing), but you shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist. And you should develope the skill for doing it.
Kiralee
the public option
Date: 2009-09-03 04:11 am (UTC)i don't listen to ANY mainstream news (only local), and i knew what the public option is -- and i am in canada.
it didn't take me long when moving to the US to recognize that mainstream tv and radio news sources cannot be trusted to give me the information i need to make informed decisions. NPR used to be better than most, but from what i understand, it's been deteriorating for years now. i used to read several papers ... and then the web was born, which made everything easier for me.
detailed information about any bill is easily found on the net. every liberal source i read has talked about it ad infinitum; some have talked about it til it's come out of everybody's ears (hi, dkos). i would be very seriously surprised if NPR had not done so. but you're probably correct that for some reason the negative republican crap gets out there and gets repeated, but the simple fact of the public option being what it is is maybe ...too simple, and therefore dem pols don't think they need to trumpet it from the hilltops? maybe you need to call your reps and give them an earfull.
i heard it first, i think, from edwards during his run for the dem nomination, and he spelled it out. in fact he said pretty directly that if that were to evolve into a single-payer system, that would be ok by him. progressives were chuffed about it!
now, is there a problem with the mainstream media providing useful knowledge? hell, yes. but don't you know that by now? you have to read other sources! try some liberal ones. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 04:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 04:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 05:25 pm (UTC)If you told the Boston Red Sox that they wouldn't be allowed to enter the playoffs until they beat Somerville High School, their objections to this new requirement would not in any way indicate that they felt there was a danger they would lose.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 04:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 04:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 06:42 pm (UTC)The program would be like a national version of Cobra, hopefully with improvements.
What I really hope for is reform measures to ensure private options stop screwing people over. The insurance I get from my job is great, but I've heard plenty of horror stories.
Ideally the private companies will be forced to be more competitive with the presence of a public option and provide better service so that everybody wins.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 09:55 pm (UTC)To the extent that our health-care system is actually about *insurance* (rather than, e.g., collective bargaining), every provider needs a favorable ratio of healthy people (that pay more in premiums than they cost in payouts) to sick people. So if you give people a choice, and healthy people tend to choose the public option more than sick people do... the insurance company is screwed because it's losing the profitable customers, while it's actually being socially useful by caring for the people who need more help.
Now, I care about the people anyway, not the insurance companies, but this might be one reason that they're scared besides 'they suck.' That is, 'health insurance is not really *meant* for competition in the first place - it's a weird sort of market failure situation - and there's not much competition right now, so no *wonder* they're scared of it existing.'
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 10:44 pm (UTC)The thing they're really afraid of (and are trying very hard to kill, if they can't kill the whole thing) is the ability for the public plan to negotiate for cheaper drugs.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 10:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-01 11:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-02 01:05 am (UTC)That's it.
That's what "the public option" is.
Actually, that's false.
And the distinction between what you describe, and what it actually "is" (well, is supposed to be, since it doesn't exist and we can't be sure what Congress will pass) is an extremely important distinction.
See, you say it's for "people who aren't getting insurance by the commercial market", but actually, it's also for people who are (or will be) getting insurance by the commercial market. That's the biggest reason it matters: because people can choose to switch to it, even if they can get a private for-profit plan (or, more relevantly, employers can choose to switch to it, to ensure their employees). That means if it can do a better job, be more transparent, make people happier, lead to better outcomes, or cost less, the private for-profit insurance companies would have to either improve, or shrink as they lose customers.
...
Now, actually, you do say this in the rest of your post, which means you may know this. Or perhaps you partly know it, but under-estimate its importance. Either way, that doesn't make your earlier statement true, and I think it's really important.
devil's advocate
Date: 2009-09-02 01:27 am (UTC)We don't need a public option to get universal health care. All we need to do is to force people to buy insurance if they can afford it and to subsidize it for the people who can't. Of course, the details are difficult. I'm not saying it's easy to figure out who can afford it or how big the subsidies should be. There are also other issues: for example, insurers should be required to take anyone who applies, as a condition for being eligible to take the government-subsidized people. However, in principle you don't need a public plan for any of this.
What good is a public option, then? The key question is whether it will have to break even, or be further subsidized by the government (aside from the income-based subsidies for poor people, which would be available no matter where they got their insurance). If it has to break even, then it's not clear that there's any point. It will be just another insurer. On the other hand, if it is allowed to operate at a loss, then it will be unfair, government-subsidized competition for the other insurers. The up-front fees will be cheaper, with the difference being made up in the taxes that pay for the subsidy.
The difficulty is that it is almost impossible to guarantee that the public option will actually break even. It'll probably end up like Amtrak, with public officials declaring every year that this year, it really has to break even, while it never actually does. Once the public plan starts losing money, it will be too late to do anything about it. You can't kill the plan, or even charge much more money, since people will throw a fit. (The people insured by the plan would be passionately opposed to this, while far fewer people would be passionately in favor of making it break even, and the loudest people often win.)
So even if the plan is started with the best of intentions, it may eventually end up requiring special subsidies, and from then on it will undermine the rest of the health insurance industry due to the unfair competition.
Some people are also worried that this could be intentional, a back door towards a single-payer system. Single-payer is politically infeasible now, but once this is set in motion, the rest of the industry won't be able to compete with the tax-subsidized plan. In ten or fifteen years, the health insurance industry will be in shambles and we can switch to a single-payer system. I don't think anyone's really planning this, but there are a number of people who wouldn't be displeased if it happened.
Re: devil's advocate
Date: 2009-09-02 01:30 am (UTC)For what it's worth -- I'm one of those people who wouldn't be displeased.
Re: devil's advocate
Date: 2009-09-02 02:52 am (UTC)Re: devil's advocate
Date: 2009-09-02 03:04 am (UTC)You're fucking something up royally? Let's hurl boatloads of cash at you!
Banking industry? Check.
Automobile industry? Check.
Insurance industry? ...
Admittedly, the insurance industry isn't fucking up the same way. They are squeezing claimants and denying coverage in the name of profits, which they are getting quite well, kthx. But to reward that asshattery by forcing everyone to by insurance from a major player in driving our healthcare into the ground really sticks in my craw.
Re: devil's advocate
Date: 2009-09-02 11:34 am (UTC)Re: devil's advocate
Date: 2009-09-02 02:14 pm (UTC)